“[Carmen] Policy, still revered for his role in the 1990s 49ers dynasty, has been cast as the public face of the Bayview Jobs, Parks, and Housing initiative — Proposition G on the June ballot. The measure would put the voters’ stamp of approval on the city’s plan to transform the [Hunters Point] shipyard and Candlestick Point into a sprawling, mixed-use neighborhood with 10,000 units of housing, 300 acres of parkland, 2 million square feet of commercial space (biotech, cleantech and office), and 600,000 square feet of retail.”
“But the measure faces a competing initiative being led by Supervisor Chris Daly. That initiative — Prop. F — would require that any development at the shipyard include at least 50 percent below-market-rate housing. That is twice the 25 percent affordable housing Lennar is proposing. A study for the Mayor’s Office of Economic and Workforce Development stated that doubling the amount of affordable housing from 25 percent to 50 percent would add $800 million to the developer’s cost, which Michael Cohen, director of the economic development office, said would kill the project.”
“The amount of investment Lennar and its equity and development partners are proposing to pump in the city’s southeast sector is staggering. The initial investment of $1.5 billion would pay for new roads as well as sewer, water and gas systems. It would build 300 acres of parks, a “vast and effective transit system,” and pay for the demolition of buildings, Cohen said. Some $5 billion would pay for 10,000 housing units and vast amount of commercial space.”
“Supervisor Daly said city voters who care about affordable housing should support his initiative. He said he believes Lennar when it says it can’t make 50 percent affordable work economically — but he doesn’t care. He said he would rather the city take the lead as developer and look for public funding “rather than handing the reins over to Lennar, which will net us a project that will fall short of meeting the needs of San Francisco.”
∙ Lennar hands ball to Policy [San Francisco Business Times]
∙ JustQuotes: The Redevelopment Of Hunters/Candlestick Point [SocketSite]
∙ JustQuotes: No Carrot, All Stick (Or Should We Say Daly Shtick?) [SocketSite]

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

Daly is an idiot! “A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.” He didn’t require the Rincon Hill developers build 50% affordable housing when he brokered that deal . . . what makes him think it would work in Hunter’s Point?

Wow, so Daly would rather see this area remain blighted than to have a lower percentage of affordable housing. Clearly, he does not understand Economics. Perhaps, us voters should mandate that Daly and the rest of the BOS enrolls in the Haas evening MBA program, to bring them up to speed. I cannot fathom how my fellow residents continues to vote for him and the other morons at the BOS. Daly should also be sent to Chicago, to meet with the mayor Daley and learn more about what progressive re-development actually means.

OK, we have a consensus that Daly is an idiot, an idealistic delusional one at best, a corrupt one at worst. But it’s our job now to make sure the June ballot speaks loudly on where we want this city to go. So enough b****ing and let’s go to vote this time around!

Asiago, I definitely know where my vote is. I realize that the demographics of this city are shifting, but I just hope that this shift is quick enough to turn down these type of ballot measures. We know that it wasn’t the case back in the ’06 elections for District 6.

This discussion has been framed as to whether or not it’s financially feasible to mandate that Lennar provide 50% BMR units. But to me, that’s missing the bigger point: is 50% BMR *desirable*? It’s as if we’ve forgotten decades of hard-learned lessons that concentrating poverty in a single neighborhood only breeds social problems. If anything, the Bayview needs an infusion of middle-class residents, not more dependent poor.

While I agree that Daly’s plan is reprehensible, though typical of “progressive” SF, BMR owners are not “poor” and 50% BMR units would not amount to a concentration of poverty.
The real question is why isn’t 2500 BMR units, as proposed by Lennar, enough? That’s more BMR units than SF has created probably in the last 10 years. Daly would rather have 0 BMR units than 2500 BMR units because only 5000 is acceptible? Where is the rest of the City leadership on this?

We see this again and again – the good becomes the enemy of the perfect (see Market/Octavia plan), so we end up with nothing.
I’m actually not very optimistic about this one. June will be a low turnout election, but the statewide rent control repeal will be sure to bring out the tenant activists in droves. No doubt they’ll be only to happy to make a statement about low-income housing in the Bayview and stick it to the man, thereby preventing *any* new housing at all. Another victory for “progressive” SF, no doubt.

I don’t care about the dueling propositions as much as how Michael Cohen can state that 1.5 billion will pay for a “vast and effective transit system” to serve this “sprawling new development” in the middle of nowhere. MUNI can’t even serve existing residential and employment centers as it stands and the central subway is coming in at nearly 1 billion a mile. The transit component really needs to work for this area, otherwise neither proposal should go forward and the whole thing should be redone.

I’m a long time resident of the dogpatch area right at the edge of cesar chaves and third. Honestly, we NEED this development to go through. This area can’t stand to wait for perfection when there is toxic waste that needs to be cleaned up as soon as possible. Would you rather wait 30 years for perfection and continue the spread of toxic waste through our poorest community?? another 10 or 20 years waiting for perfection could mean hundreds of lives. Clean it up now. Please!!! It is the best thing you can do for our health. Please let this go through.